Rates and Patterns of Australian Emergency Department Presentations of People Who Use Stimulants: A Systematic Literature Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The use of illicit stimulants continues to pose a significant challenge to different health sectors. In Australia, four particular stimulants, namely amphetamines and their derivatives, methamphetamine, ecstasy or 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), and cocaine cause a significant challenge to EDs as managing patients who use stimulants can be labor and resource intensive. While Australian data are available for stimulant-related ambulance attendances and hospitalizations, little is known about ED presentations of people who use stimulants. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the available literature related to the rates and patterns of ED presentations of people who use stimulants in Australia. A search was conducted on EBSCOhost, CINAHL Complete, and PubMed databases, as well as Google Scholar. Search terms consisted of combinations of the following terms: 1) stimulant AND ED AND Australia; 2) stimulants AND emergency presentations OR accident and emergency AND Australia, 3) amphetamine OR methamphetamine OR ecstasy OR cocaine AND ED AND Australia. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review and subjected to a quality appraisal. Data were extracted from the selected papers, including patient demographics, presentation rates, type of stimulant, reasons for presentations, police or ambulance service involvement, comorbidities, mental health issues, triage codes, admissions, and separations. The results of the review are reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were eligible if they were English-language peer-reviewed articles published between January 2011 and December 2021 and if they included data on Australian ED presentations of people who use non-prescription illicit stimulants. Studies were excluded if they did not include stimulant-related ED presentations or focused on ED presentations related to prescription stimulants, including Ritalin and Adderall, non-stimulant drugs, or caffeine for attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The selected articles were appraised for quality, rigor, and risk of bias by two authors. The studies were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies depending on the methodology identified in the study. A total of 19 articles were included in this study. Males represented 53 to 85% of ED presentations of people who use stimulants with an age range of 0 to 65 and are more likely to be transported by police or ambulance. People who use stimulants presented to EDs with varying psychological and behavioral concerns such as psychosis, self-harm, suicidal ideations, hallucinations, agitations, and aggressiveness, as well as medical conditions, including heart palpitations, nausea and vomiting, and significant physical injuries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».